A. Defendant A and Defendant A paid most of the loans in relation to the facts constituting a crime as indicated in the judgment of the court below to the victims for the purchase price, construction cost, etc., and it was not impossible for Defendant A to pay the balance of the purchase price and the construction cost through the sale of a house by electric source. However, while normally performing construction, it was agreed to waive the right to the flag of a building due to temporary shortage of funds and to cancel the contract with the victims. Since it was irrelevant to Defendant A to the fact that the damage was finally caused by Defendant B, etc.’s act, there was no criminal intent by deception.

In addition, with regard to the criminal facts of the judgment below, the subject who guaranteed the completion of liability and sold 701 units at the time of concluding the sales contract with the victim J was the defendant C or L Integrated Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "L Integrated Construction"), and the defendant A used it as construction cost after receiving the payment of KRW 20 million out of the sale price as the owner of the building, and it was impossible to sell it due to the failure of the construction completion of L Integrated Construction. Therefore, there was no criminal intent to acquire it.

Nevertheless, the court below found Defendant A guilty of all the charges, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

(B) Defendant B did not commit a deceptive act against the victims in collusion with Defendant C and A in relation to the facts constituting the crime as indicated in the judgment below, and did not intend to commit a deceptive act.

In addition, Defendant B was aware that the right to sell the above 701 subparagraph has become null and void after introducing the victim J to Defendant A or concluding the sales contract with Defendant B in relation to the crime 2 as stated in the judgment of the court below. Thus, Defendant B did not have conspired to commit the crime 2 as stated in the judgment of the court below and did not have the intent to commit the crime of

Nevertheless, the lower court against Defendant B.